Determining soft graph correspondence

ABSTRACT

A method for determining a correspondence between a first node set of a first graph and a second node of a second graph includes building a feature representation for each of the first graph and the second graph, and inferring the correspondence between the first node set and the second node set based on the feature representations.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/637,378, filed Apr. 24, 2012, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

This invention was made with Government support under Contract No.: W911NF-11-C-0200 (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). The Government has certain rights in this invention.

BACKGROUND

The present disclosure relates generally to determining similarities between graphs, and more particularly, to building soft correspondence between node sets of respective input graphs.

Many real-world, complex objects with structural properties can be modeled as graphs. For example, the World Wide Web can be represented as a graph with web-pages as nodes and hyperlinks as edges. In another example, a patient's medical data can be modeled as a symptom-lab test graph, which can be constructed from his/her medical records, providing an indicator of the structure information of possible disease s/he carries (e.g., the association between a particular symptom and some lab test, the co-occurrence of different symptom).

Random walk graph kernel has been used as a tool for various data mining tasks including classification and similarity computation. Despite its usefulness, however, it suffers from its expensive computational costs which are at least O(n3) or O(m2) for graphs with n nodes and m edges.

BRIEF SUMMARY

According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for determining a soft correspondence between a first node set of a first graph and a second node of a second graph includes building a feature representation for each of the first graph and the second graph, and inferring the soft correspondence between the first node set and the second node set based on the feature representations.

According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for finding a correspondence between a plurality of graphs includes converting the plurality of graphs into respective feature representations and decoupling a dependency between the plurality of graphs, and determining the correspondence between a plurality of features of the feature representations.

According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a computer program product includes a computer usable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code configured to be executed by a processor to implement a method for determining a correspondence between a first node set of a first graph and a second node of a second graph.

According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a system for determining a correspondence between a first node set of a first graph and a second node of a second graph includes distinct software modules, and wherein the distinct software modules include a feature determination module and an inference module. The system can be configured to perform a method including building a feature representation for each of the first graph and the second graph, and wherein the building is performed by the feature determination module in response to being called by the processor, and inferring a correspondence between the first node set and the second node set based on the feature representations, wherein the inferring is performed by the inference module in response to being called by the processor.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

Preferred embodiments of the present disclosure will be described below in more detail, with reference to the accompanying drawings:

FIG. 1 is an illustration of the direct product of two graphs according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 2A shows an exemplary method for determining a kernel according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 2B shows an exemplary method for building a soft correspondence between node sets of respective graphs according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 2C shows an exemplary system for determining a soft correspondence between node sets of respective graphs according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 3 shows a summary of running times for different methods according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 4 is an exemplary algorithm for determining a kernel given two graphs according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 5 is an another exemplary algorithm for determining a kernel given two graphs according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 6 is an another exemplary algorithm for determining a kernel given two graphs according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 7 shows the running time comparison of different methods according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 8 shows the accuracy of different exemplary methods according to an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 9 shows the accuracy of different exemplary methods according to an embodiment of the present disclosure; and

FIG. 10 is a block diagram depicting an exemplary computer system for determining a kernel according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to a method for determining a scalable random walker. More particularly, a method is described for determining an approximate random walk kernel (ARK).

Many real graphs have lower intrinsic ranks, compared with the size of the graphs. According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, an ARK method uses a set of methods to leverage low-rank structures as an intermediate operation, speeding the determination of the random walk graph kernel. More particularly, an ARK method exploits the low rank structures to determine random walk graph kernels in O(n2) or O(m) time.

Herein, the following symbols are used:

Symbol Definition G a graph n number of nodes in a graph m number of edges in a graph A adjacency matrix of a graph k(G₁, G₂) exact graph kernel function on graphs G₁ and G₂ {circumflex over (k)}(G₁, G₂) approximate graph kernel function on graphs G₁ and G₂ W weight matrix in random walk kernel c decay factor in random walk kernel d_(n) number of distinct node labels r reduced rank after low rank approximation

As described above, a random walk graph kernel can be used for classification and measuring similarities of graphs. Referring to FIG. 1, given two graphs A₁ and A₂ (101 and 102, respectively), the random walk graph kernel can be used to determine the number of common walks in two graphs, exemplified by the direct product A_(x) (103). Two walks are common if the lengths of the walks are equal, and the label sequences are the same for nodes/edges in labeled graphs. The number of common walks is used to measure the similarity of two graphs.

According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure and referring to FIG. 2A, the kernel/similarity between two input graphs (201 and 202) can be determined by inferring a low-rank representation of a first graph at 203 (or low-rank approximation (LRA)), inferring a low-rank representation of a second graph at 204, estimating a left interaction between the first and second graphs using side information (e.g., starting vectors and stopping vectors of the respective graphs) at 205, estimating a right interaction between the first and second graphs using side information (e.g., starting vectors and stopping vectors of the respective graphs) at 206, estimating a middle interaction between the first and second graphs at 207, and aggregating the left, middle and right interactions and determining a similarity between the first and second graphs at 208.

The following with describe an exemplary embodiment in more detail.

According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a random walk graph kernel for the unlabeled and unnormalized case can be derived. The random walk graph kernel can be generalized to labeled and normalized cases. Given two graphs G₁={V₁, E₁} and G₂={V₂, E₂}, the direct product graph G_(x)={V_(x), E_(x)} of G₁ and G₂ is a graph with the node set V_(x)={(ν₁, ν₂)|ν₁εV₁, ν₂εV₂}, and the edge set E_(x)={((ν₁₁, ν₂₁),(ν₁₂, ν₂₂))|(ν₁₁,ν₁₂)εE₁,(ν₂₁,ν₂₂)εE₂}. A random walk on the direct product graph G_(x) can be said to be equivalent to the simultaneous random walks on G₁ and G₂. Let p₁ and p₂ be starting vectors of the random walks on G₁ and G₂, respectively. Stopping vectors q₁ and q₂ can be defined similarly. The number of length l common walks on the direct product graph G_(x) can be given by (q₁

q₂)(W₁ ^(T)

W₂ ^(T))^(l)(p₁

p₂), where W₁ and W₂ are the adjacency matrices of G₁ and G₂, respectively. Discounting the longer walks by the decay factor c, and summing up all the common walks for all different lengths, an exemplary random walk graph kernel can be expressed as:

$\begin{matrix} {{k\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)} = {\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty}\; {\left( {q_{1} \otimes q_{2}} \right)\left( {W_{1}^{T} \otimes W_{2}^{T}} \right)^{l}\left( {p_{1} \otimes p_{2}} \right)}}} \\ {= {\left( {q_{1} \otimes q_{2}} \right)\left( {I - {c\left( {W_{1}^{T} \otimes W_{2}^{T}} \right)}} \right)^{- 1}{\left( {p_{1} \otimes p_{2}} \right).}}} \end{matrix}$

More generally, the random walk graph kernel can be defined as follows.

Let G₁ and G₂ be two graphs. Let p₁ and p₂ be the starting vectors of the random walks on G₁ and G₂, respectively. The stopping probabilities q₁ and q₂ can be defined similarly. The random walk graph kernel k(G₁, G₂) can be determined by:

k(G ₁ ,G ₂):=q ^(T)(I−cW)⁻¹ p,  Eq. (1)

where W is a weight matrix, c is a decay factor, p=p₁

p₂, and q=q₁

q₂.

The weight matrix W can be determined by a normalization and labels on nodes/edges.

Referring to the normalization: Let A₁ and A₂ be the adjacency matrices of G₁ and G₂, respectively. For an unnormalized case, the weight matrix can be given by:

W=A ₁ ^(T)

A ₂ ^(T).

For a normalized case, the weight matrix can be given by:

W=A ₁ ^(T) D ₁ ⁻¹

A ₂ ^(T) D ₂ ⁻¹,

where D₁ and D₂ are diagonal matrices whose i^(th) diagonal elements are given by Σ_(j)A₁(i, j) and Σ_(j)A₂(i, j), respectively.

Referring to labels: Nodes and edges can be labeled. Consider the case of node labeled graphs. Let G₁ have n₁ nodes and G₂ have n₂ nodes. Let l₁ and l₂ be the node label vectors of G₁ and G₂, respectively. The ((i−1)·n₂+j)^(th) row of the weight matrix W are zeroed out if the i^(th) element l₁(i) of l₁ and the j^(th) element l₂(j) of l₂ do not have the same labels. Consider now edge labeled graphs. Let W₁ and W₂ be the normalized or unnormalized adjacency matrices of G₁ and G₂, respectively. The ((i₁−1)·n₂+i₂,(j₁−1)·n₂+j₂)^(th) element of W is 1 if and only if the edge labels of W₁ ^(T)(i₁,j₁) and W₂ ^(T)(i₂,j₂) are the same.

Referring now to various exemplary exact methods for determining a random walk graph kernel that follow, assume that both the graphs G₁ and G₂ have n nodes and m edges.

In a naive method the Equation (1) can be computed by inverting the n²×n² matrix W. Since inverting a matrix takes time proportional to the cube of the number of rows/columns, the running time is O(n⁶).

In another example, if the weight matrix can be decomposed into one or two sums of Kronecker products, a Sylvester method can be used to solve the Equation (1) in O(n³) time. In the Sylvester method, the two graphs need to have the same number of nodes. Further, the theoretical running time of the Sylvester method on the weight matrix composed of more than two Kronecker products is unknown.

For unlabeled and unnormalized matrices, a spectral decomposition method runs in O(n³) time. The problem of spectral decomposition method is that it can't run on the labeled graph or normalized matrix.

In a further example, a conjugate gradient (CG) method can be used to solve linear systems. To use CG for determining random walk graph kernel, solve (I−cWx=p) for x using CG, and determine q^(T)x. Each iteration of CG takes O(m²) since the most expensive operation is the matrix-vector multiplication. Thus CG takes O(m²i_(F)) time where i_(F) denote the number of iterations. A problem of the CG method is its high memory requirement: it requires O(m²) memory.

In yet another example, a fixed point iteration method solves (I−cW)x=p for x by iterative matrix-vector multiplications. Similar to CG, the fixed point iteration method takes O(m²i_(F)) time for i_(F) iterations, and has the same problems of requiring O(m²) memory.

According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, in an approximate random walk kernel (ARK) method, a set of approximation algorithms can be used to determine the random walk graph kernel. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, approximations of the graph(s), along with a starting vector and a stopping vector for each graph, can be stored in less memory than the entire graph and may not suffer an ‘out of memory’ error, such as in a case where a graph is too large to be stored in a memory. FIG. 3 shows a summary 300 of the running time comparison of an ARK method and the exact algorithms. Unlabeled graphs correspond to the cases (a) and (b). Node labeled graphs correspond to the cases (c) and (d).

Referring to the unlabeled graphs and an asymmetric W (ARK-U, defined below), consider node unlabeled graphs with the normalized weight matrix, which correspond to the case (a) in FIG. 3. Let two graphs G₁ and G₂ have the adjacency matrices A₁ and A₂, respectively. Let W₁=A₁D₁ ⁻¹ and W=A₂D₂ ⁻¹ be the row normalized adjacency matrix of G₁ and G₂, where D₁ and D₂ are diagonal matrices whose i^(th) diagonal elements are given by Σ_(j)A₁(i,j) and Σ_(j)A₂(i,j), respectively. In this setting, the weight matrix W can be given by:

W=W ₁ ^(T)

W ₂ ^(T)

Since the W matrix is large (e.g., including hundreds of nodes, thousands of nodes, etc.), W can be approximated using low-rank approximations. More precisely, the r-approximation of a matrix can be defined as follows.

Given a matrix A, the r-approximation of A is a matrix Â satisfying the following equation:

∥A−Â∥ _(F)≦min_(Z|rank(Z)=r) ∥A−Z∥ _(F),  Eq. (2)

meaning that Â provides a better approximation to A than the best rank-r approximation.

An approximate random walk kernel can be defined as follows.

Given a random walk graph kernel function k(G₁, G₂):=q^(T)(I−cW)⁻¹p, a approximate random walk graph kernel {circumflex over (k)}(G₁, G₂) can be given by:

{circumflex over (k)}(G ₁ ,G ₂):=q ^(T)(I−cŴ)⁻¹ p

where Ŵ is a low rank approximation of W.

The Ŵ matrix needs to be as close as possible to W, while preserving a low rank. That is, Ŵ can be an r-approximation of W. It is well known that the singular value decomposition (SVD) gives a good (or best) low rank approximation. Thus, one approach to get the r-approximation of W is to use rank-r SVD of W. However, such a method has a running time O(m²r), and the W matrix needs to be explicitly constructed.

According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the SVD of W₁ ^(T) and W₂ ^(T) can be used to determine the r-approximation of the weight matrix W. This approach may not need to explicitly construct the W matrix. This method is referred to as Ark-U. Algorithm 1, shown in FIG. 4, gives an exemplary approximation method.

The Algorithm 1 for Ark-U gives the approximate random walk kernel:

{circumflex over (k)}(G ₁ ,G ₂)=q ^(T)(I−cŴ)⁻¹ p,  Eq. (3)

where Ŵ is the r-approximation of W=W₁

W₂.

As a proof of Algorithm 1: Let W₁ ^(T)=U₁Λ₁V₁ ^(T) and W₂ ^(T)=U₂Λ₂V₂ ^(T) be the top r singular value decompositions of W₁ ^(T) and W₂ ^(T). From the standard result of linear algebra,

Ŵ=(U ₁

U ₂)(Λ₁

Λ₂)(V ₁ ^(T)

V ₂ ^(T))

is a singular value decomposition. The Ŵ satisfies ∥W−Ŵ∥_(F)≦min_(Z|rank(Z)=r)∥W−Z∥_(F) since the diagonal elements of the matrix Λ₁

Λ₂ contain top r largest eigenvalues of W₁ ^(T)

W₂ ^(T).

Thus,

$\begin{matrix} {{{q^{T}\left( {I - {cW}} \right)}^{- 1}p} = {{q^{T}\left( {I - {{c\left( {U_{1} \otimes U_{2}} \right)}\left( {\Lambda_{1} \otimes \Lambda_{2}} \right)\left( {V_{1}^{T} \otimes V_{2}^{T}} \right)}} \right)}^{- 1}p}} \\ {= {{q^{T}\left( {I + {{c\left( {U_{1} \otimes U_{2}} \right)}{\overset{\sim}{\Lambda}\left( {V_{1}^{T} \otimes V_{2}^{T}} \right)}}} \right)}p}} \\ {= {{q^{T}p} + {{{cq}^{T}\left( {U_{1} \otimes U_{2}} \right)}{\overset{\sim}{\Lambda}\left( {V_{1}^{T} \otimes V_{2}^{T}} \right)}p}}} \\ {{= {{\left( {q_{1}^{T}p_{1}} \right)\left( {q_{2}^{T}p_{2}} \right)} + {{c\left( {q_{1}^{T}{U_{1} \otimes q_{2}^{T}}U_{2}} \right)}{\overset{\sim}{\Lambda}\left( {V_{1}^{T}{p_{1} \otimes V_{2}^{T}}p_{2}} \right)}}}},} \end{matrix}$

where the second equality comes from the Sherman-Morrison Lemma.

Referring to the time and the space complexities of Algorithm 1, note that the time complexity O(n²r⁴+mr+r⁶) of Ark-U is smaller than the best exact algorithm's complexity O(n³) since n>>rn>>r as shown in FIG. 3.

More particularly, the time complexity of Ark-U takes O(n²r⁴+mr+r⁶) time. Here, the top r decompositions in lines 2 and 4 cost O(nr+r⁴). Determining {tilde over (Λ)} in line 5 takes O(n²r⁴+mr+r⁶). Determining lines 6, 7 and 8 takes O(nr+r⁴).

Further, the space complexity of Ark-U uses O(m+n²r²) space. Here, the storage of W₁ and W₂ use O(m) space. The top r decompositions in lines 3 and 4 use O(nr) space. Lines 5 to 8 use O(n²r²) space, thus making the total space complexity O(m+n²r²).

Ark-U can be used for both the symmetric and the asymmetric weight matrices. For symmetric weight matrix, Ark-U+ is another exemplary approximation algorithm. Ark-U+ handles the case (b) in FIG. 3.

To describe the weight matrix Win this setting, assume two graphs G₁ and G₂ have the symmetric adjacency matrices A₁ and A₂, respectively. Then, the weight matrix W can be given by:

W=A ₁ ^(T)

A ₂ ^(T),  Eq. (4)

where W is also symmetric by the nature of Kronecker products. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the eigen decomposition can be used to determine the r-approximation of W. Since the eigen decomposition and the SVD on symmetric matrices are different only up to signs, the eigen decomposition gives the correct r-approximation. Computationally, only one n×r eigenvectors needs to be stored, instead of two n×r singular vectors. Algorithm 2, shown in FIG. 5, gives an exemplary method for Ark-U+ for symmetric W.

More particularly, Ark-U+ gives the approximate random walk kernel:

{circumflex over (k)}(G ₁ ,G ₂)=q ^(T)(I−cŴ)⁻¹ p

where Ŵ is the r-approximation of W=W₁

W₂.

As a proof of Algorithm 2: Let A₁ ^(T)=U₁Λ₁U₁ ^(T) and A₂ ^(T)=U₂Λ₂U₂ ^(T) be the top r singular value decompositions of A₁ and A₂, respectively. From the standard result of linear algebra,

Ŵ=(U ₁

U ₂)(Λ₁

Λ₂)(U ₁ ^(T)

U ₂ ^(T)),  Eq. (5)

is a singular value decomposition. The Ŵ satisfies ∥W−Ŵ∥_(F)≦min_(Z|rank(Z)=r)∥W−Z∥_(F) since the diagonal elements of the matrix Λ₁

Λ₂ contain top r largest eigenvalues of A₁ ^(T)

A₂ ^(T).

Thus,

$\begin{matrix} {{{q^{T}\left( {I - {cW}} \right)}^{- 1}p} = {{q^{T}\left( {I - {{c\left( {U_{1} \otimes U_{2}} \right)}\left( {\Lambda_{1} \otimes \Lambda_{2}} \right)\left( {U_{1}^{T} \otimes U_{2}^{T}} \right)}} \right)}^{- 1}p}} \\ {= {{q^{T}\left( {I + {{c\left( {U_{1} \otimes U_{2}} \right)}{\overset{\sim}{\Lambda}\left( {U_{1}^{T} \otimes U_{2}^{T}} \right)}}} \right)}p}} \\ {= {{q^{T}p} + {{{cq}^{T}\left( {U_{1} \otimes U_{2}} \right)}{\overset{\sim}{\Lambda}\left( {U_{1}^{T} \otimes U_{2}^{T}} \right)}p}}} \\ {{= {{\left( {q_{1}^{T}p_{1}} \right)\left( {q_{2}^{T}p_{2}} \right)} + {{c\left( {q_{1}^{T}{U_{1} \otimes q_{2}^{T}}U_{2}} \right)}{\overset{\sim}{\Lambda}\left( {U_{1}^{T}{p_{1} \otimes U_{2}^{T}}p_{2}} \right)}}}},} \end{matrix}$

where the second equality comes from the Sherman-Morrison Lemma.

Referring to the time and the space complexities of Algorithm 2, note that the time and the space complexity of Ark-U+ is smaller than those of Ark-U due to the exploitation of the symmetricity.

More particularly, the time complexity of Ark-U+ takes O((m+n)+r+r²) time. Here, the top r decompositions in lines 1 and 2 cost O(mr). Computing {tilde over (Λ)} in line 3 takes O(r²). Computing line 4, 5 and 6 takes O(nr+r²).

The space complexity of Ark-U+ uses O(m+nr+r²) space. Here, the storage of W₁ and W₂ uses O(m) space. The top r decompositions in lines 3 and 4 uses O (nr). Lines 5 to 8 use O(nr+r²) space, thus making the total space complexity O(m+nr+r²).

In Ark-U+, the difference of the exact and the approximate random walk kernel (e.g., how close is the approximate random walk kernel {circumflex over (k)}(G₁, G₂) to the exact kernel k(G₁,G₂)) can be considered to be bounded by:

$\begin{matrix} {{{{{{k\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)} - {k\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)}} \leq}}{\sum\limits_{{({i,j})} \notin F}\; {\frac{c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}{1 - {c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}}}}},} & {{Eq}.\mspace{14mu} (6)} \end{matrix}$

where λ₁ ^((i)) and λ₂ ^((i)) are the i^(th) largest eigenvalue of Λ₁ and Λ₂, respectively, and F={(a,b)|a,bε[1,k]} is the set of pairs (a,b) where both a and b are in the range of [1,k].

As a proof of the error bound: Let W=A₁ ^(T)

A₂ ^(T). Then, (U₁

U₂)(Λ₁

Λ₂)(U₁ ^(T)

U₂ ^(T)) is an eigen decomposition of W, which includes top k largest eigenvalues of W. Let u₁ ^((i)) and u₂ ^((i)) be the i^(th) column of U₁ and U₂, respectively. Then, ũ^((i,j)):=u₁ ^((i))

u₂ ^((j)) is the eigenvector of W with the corresponding eigenvalue λ₁ ^((i))λ₂ ^((j)). It follows that:

$\begin{matrix} {\left( {I - {cW}} \right)^{- 1} = {I + {{c\left( {U_{1} \otimes U_{2}} \right)}{\overset{\sim}{\Lambda}\left( {U_{1}^{T} \otimes U_{2}^{T}} \right)}}}} \\ {{= {I + {\sum\limits_{i,{j \in {\lbrack{1,n}\rbrack}}}\; {{\overset{\sim}{\lambda}}^{({i,j})}{{\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})}\left( {\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})} \right)}^{T}}}}},} \end{matrix}$ ${{{where}\mspace{14mu} \overset{\sim}{\Lambda}} \approx \left( {\left( {\Lambda_{1} \otimes \Lambda_{2}} \right)^{- 1} - {cI}} \right)^{- 1}},{{{and}\mspace{14mu} {\overset{\sim}{\lambda}}^{({i,j})}} \approx {\frac{c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}{1 - {c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}}.}}$

Now, consider an exemplary approximation: Let Ŵ be the W matrix from top k low rank approximations of W₁ and W₂, as shown in Equation (3.8). Then,

$\left( {I - {c\hat{W}}} \right)^{- 1} = {I + {\sum\limits_{i,{j \in {\lbrack{1,k}\rbrack}}}{{\overset{\sim}{\lambda}}^{({i,j})}{{{\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})}\left( {\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})} \right)}^{T}.}}}}$

Thus,

$\begin{matrix} {{{{k\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)} - {\hat{k}\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)}}} = {{{{q^{T}\left( {I - {cW}} \right)}^{- 1}p} - {{q^{T}\left( {I - {c\hat{W}}} \right)}^{- 1}p}}}} \\ {= {{{q^{T}\left( {\sum\limits_{{({i,j})} \notin F}\; {\frac{c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}{1 - {c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}}{{\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})}\left( {\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})} \right)}^{T}}} \right)}p}}} \\ {\leq {{q^{T}}_{2} \cdot {{\sum\limits_{{({i,j})} \notin F}\; {\frac{c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}{1 - {c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}}{{\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})}\left( {\overset{\sim}{u}}^{({i,j})} \right)}^{T}}}}_{F} \cdot {p}_{2}}} \\ {{\leq {\sum\limits_{{({i,j})} \notin F}{\; \frac{c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}{1 - {c\; \lambda_{1}^{(i)}\lambda_{2}^{(j)}}}}}},,} \end{matrix}$

where the last inequality uses:

∥q ^(T)∥₂ ≦∥q ^(T)∥₁=1,

∥p∥ ₂ ≦∥p∥ ₁=1, and

∥Σ_(i) a _(i) u _(i) u _(i) ^(T)∥_(F)=√{square root over (tr(Σ_(i) a _(i) ² u _(i) u _(i) ^(T)))}=√{square root over (Σ_(i) a _(i) ² ·tr(u _(i) u _(i) ^(T)))}=√{square root over (Σ_(i) a _(i) ²)}≦Σ_(i) |a _(i)|

for any real numbers a_(i) and orthonormal vectors u.

According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, an Ark-L method is an approximation method to determine a random walk graph kernel on node labeled graphs. As discussed above, Ark-L addresses the cases (c) and (d) in FIG. 3.

As described above, the weight matrix W for node labeled graphs can be constructed by zeroing out rows of the Kronecker products of normalized or unnormalized matrices. More particularly, given the normalized or unnormalized adjacency matrices W₁ and W₂ of G₁ and G₂, respectively, the weight matrix W can be given by:

W={tilde over (L)}(W ₁ ^(T)

W ₂ ^(T)).

where {tilde over (L)} is a diagonal matrix whose (i,i)^(th) element is 0 if the i^(th) row of (W₁ ^(T)

W₂ ^(T)) is zeroed out due to label inconsistency, or 1 otherwise. Let L₁ ^((j)) be a diagonal matrix whose i^(th) element is 1 if the node i of the graph G₁ has the label j, and 0 otherwise. L₂ ^((j)) can be defined similarly for the graph G₂. Then, {tilde over (L)} can be expressed by the sums of Kronecker products:

$\overset{\sim}{L} = {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{d_{n}}\; {L_{1}^{(j)} \otimes L_{2}^{(j)}}}$

where d_(n) is the number of distinct node labels.

An exemplary approximation method Ark-L for a random walk kernel on node labeled graphs is given in Algorithm 3, FIG. 6. Here, assume that W₁ and W₂ can be either row-normalized or unnormalized adjacency matrix of G₁ and G₂, respectively.

The Algorithm 3 for Ark-L gives the approximate random walk kernel:

{circumflex over (k)}(G ₁ ,G ₂)=q ^(T)(I−cŴ)⁻¹ p,  Eq. (7)

where {tilde over (W)}={tilde over (L)}W_(r), and W_(r) is the r-approximation of W₁

W₂.

As a proof of Algorithm 3: Let W₁ ^(T)=U₁Λ₁V₁ ^(T) and W₂ ^(T)=U₂Λ₂V₂ ^(T) be the top r singular value decompositions of W₁ ^(T) and W₂ ^(T). From the standard result of linear algebra,

Ŵ=(U ₁

U ₂)(Λ₁

Λ₂)(V ₁ ^(T)

V ₂ ^(T))

is a singular value decomposition. The Ŵ satisfies ∥W−Ŵ∥_(F)≦min_(Z|rank(Z)=r)∥W−Z∥_(F) since the diagonal elements of the matrix Λ₁

Λ₂ contain top r largest eigenvalues of A₁

A₂.

Thus,

∥q ^(T)∥₂ ≦∥q ^(T)∥₁=1,

∥p∥ ₂ ≦∥p∥ ₁=1, and

∥Σ_(i) a _(i) u _(i) u _(i) ^(T)∥_(F)=√{square root over (tr(Σ_(i) a _(i) ² u _(i) u _(i) ^(T)))}=√{square root over (Σ_(i) a _(i) ² ·tr(u _(i) u _(i) ^(T)))}=√{square root over (Σ_(i) a _(i) ²)}≦Σ_(i) |a _(i)|

where the second equality comes from the Sherman-Morrison Lemma.

Referring to the time and the space complexities of Algorithm 3, note that the time complexity O(d_(n) ²r⁴+nr+r⁶) of Ark-L is smaller than the best exact algorithm's complexity O(m²i_(F)) since n>>r and n>>d_(n).

More particularly, the time complexity of Ark-L takes O(d_(n)n²r⁴+mr+r⁶) time. Here, the top r decompositions in lines 1 and 2 cost O(mr). Determining {tilde over (Λ)} in line 3 takes (d_(n)n²r⁴+r⁶). Determining lines 4, 5 and 6 takes O(d_(n)nr+d_(b)r⁴+r⁴).

Further, the space complexity of Ark-L uses O(m+n²r²) space. Here, the storage of W₁ and W₂ uses O(m) space. The top r decompositions in lines 1 and 2 use O(nr). Lines 5 to 8 use O(n²r²) space, thus making the total space complexity O(m+n²r²).

Experimental Data Follows.

The exact methods, both the conjugate gradient and the fixed point iterations have been run, where the one with a smaller running time were chosen. The graphs in Table 1 have been used with the following details: WWW-Barabasi—a Web graph snapshot of an educational domain; HEP-TH—a citation network in the area of theoretical high energy physics; and AS-Oregon—a router connection graph.

TABLE 1 Name Nodes Edges WWW-Barabasi 325,729 2,207,671 HEP-TH 27,400 704,036 AS-Oregon 13,579 74,896

A decay factor c=0.1 was used for Ark-U and Ark-L, and c=0.0001 was used for Ark-U+ so that the fixed point iterations method converge. All the experiments were performed using a Linux machine with 48 GB memory, and quad-core AMD 2400 MHz central processing units (CPUs).

Referring to scalability, for each graph, the principal sub matrices (=upper, left part of the adjacency matrix) of different lengths were extracted, and the graph kernel was determined using the two copies of the extracted sub graph. FIG. 7 shows the running time comparison of our approximation vs. exact methods for real world graphs.

In the first column of FIG. 7, examples (a), (d) and (g), Ark-U is compared against the exact method on unlabeled, asymmetric graphs. Note that for all the graphs, Ark-U is about 6 times to 11 times faster than the exact method. The exact method is not plotted for all the number of nodes since it failed with the ‘out of memory’ error.

In the second column of FIG. 7, examples (b), (e) and (h), Ark-U+ is compared against the exact method and Ark-U on unlabeled, symmetric graphs. Note that for all the graphs, Ark-U+ is about 389 times to 522 times faster than the exact and Ark-U method. The exact and Ark-U method is not plotted for all the number of nodes since they failed with the ‘out of memory’ error.

In the third column of FIG. 7, examples (c), (f) and (i), Ark-L is compared against the exact method. Note that the plots for exact method have been omitted beyond 500 data points. According to the data, Ark-L is about 695 times to 97,865 times faster than the exact method.

The accuracy of Ark can be defined by the relative error of an approximation with regard to the exact kernel:

${accuracy} = {\frac{{{\hat{k}\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)} - {k\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)}}}{k\left( {G_{1},G_{2}} \right)}.}$

FIG. 8 shows the accuracy of different exemplary methods with respect to the number of nodes, wherein the number of eigenvalues set to 6. Note that for all the graphs, Ark gives more than 90% accuracies. Note also that only top 6 eigenvalues for a 2,000 node graph resulted in more than 91.3% accuracies.

FIG. 9 shows the accuracy of different exemplary methods with respect to the number of eigenvalues, the number of nodes to has been set to 500. Note that for all the graphs, Ark gives more than 90% accuracies. Note also that increasing the number of eigenvalues increase the accuracy.

Referring now to FIG. 2B; features of an input graph can be used as an approximate representation, and the features of two or more graphs can be used to infer a soft correspondence between the graphs. Soft correspondence refers to the case where a node from one graph corresponds to each node from another graph with a respective weight (see for example, correspondence matrix 218 in FIG. 2B).

Exemplary implementations of the soft correspondence include de-anonymization in the context network security for linking of a user to a network address, social network analysis, prediction of disease given a set of medical records (e.g., to find similar patients), and data analysis (e.g., given n graphs, finding an n×n graph similarity matrix, which can be fed into a kernel-based data analytic technique for clustering, classification, etc.). That is, FIG. 2B can be considered a representation of an additional exemplary method for determining a kernel.

According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure and referring to FIG. 2B, a method for determining a soft correspondence between a first node set of a first graph 211 and a second node of a second graph 212 includes building a feature representation for each of the first graph and the second graph 213 and 214 respectively, and inferring the soft correspondence between the first node set and the second node set based on the feature representations 215.

According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a set of graph features on the node-level can be used as an approximate representation of the graphs, that is, to build a feature representation. These graph features can include a degree, a community, and a centrality. The degree can refer to a number of neighbors of a given node. The community can refer to community/cluster membership. The community/cluster membership can indicate which community/cluster the corresponding node belongs to. The centrality can refer to a relative importance measure of the corresponding node. The centrality can have different definitions, including degree centrality, betweenness centrality, flow-based centralities, etc. These graph features can be used as an approximate representation of the graph. The approximate representation can be used to infer the soft correspondence. Further, the dependency in the objective function can be decoupled, and the original n-to-n matching problem is converted to a 1-to-n matching problems. Here, a projective gradient descent method can be used to solve each of the 1-to-n matching problems.

More particularly, given the input graphs A1 and A1 (211 and 212), where A1: n1×n1; and A2: n2×n2, the graphs can be converted into a feature representation at 213 and 214, where feature representation F1: n1×d1; and feature representation F2: n2×d2. That is, in FIG. 2B, each row, e.g., 217, corresponds to a different node in the graph.

A soft correspondence matrix C: n1×n2 can be inferred at 215 from the feature representations F1 and F2. For example,

$\begin{matrix} {{\underset{C}{{ARG}\; {MIN}}{{F_{1} - {CF}_{2}}}_{F}^{2}}{{0 \leq {C\left( {i,j} \right)} \leq 1};}{{{Subject}\mspace{14mu} {to}\text{:}\mspace{11mu} {\sum\limits_{j}\; {C\left( {i,j} \right)}}} = {1\left( {{{{for}\mspace{14mu} i} = 1},\ldots \mspace{14mu},n_{1}} \right)}}} & {{Eq}.\mspace{14mu} 1} \\ {{and}\mspace{14mu} \left( {{{{for}\mspace{14mu} i} = 1},\ldots,n_{1}} \right)} & \; \\ {{\underset{C{({i, ::})}}{{ARG}\; {MIN}}{{{F_{1}\left( {i, ::} \right)} - {{C\left( {i, ::} \right)}F_{2}}}}_{F}^{2}}{{0 \leq {C\left( {i,j} \right)} \leq 1};}{{{Subject}\mspace{14mu} {to}\text{:}\mspace{11mu} {\sum\limits_{j}\; {C\left( {i,j} \right)}}} = 1}} & {{Eq}.\mspace{14mu} 2} \end{matrix}$

The Equation 2 can be solved by a projective gradient descent. Gradient information can be expressed as ∥F₁(i,:)−C(i,:)F₂∥_(F) ² w.r.t C(i,;). That is, the method iterates at 216. The projective gradient descent can further incorporate side-information. This side-information can include constraints such as, i₁ must link to i₂; i₁ cannot link to i₂, i₁ is more likely to link to i₂, than to j₂, etc.

Further, in resultant a cross population correspondence matrix 218, the features of a given node of the first graph (e.g., internal population) are represented in a respective column and the features of a given node of the second graph (e.g., external population) are represented in a respective row.

In the context of an exemplary implementation, an internal customer population (e.g., all the customers of a financial institute) can be linked to external open-social media accounts, for example, to create a targeted advertisement/marketing program for the internal customers based on activities in the open-social media. The correspondence between the internal customers, e.g., graph 211, and the corresponding external open social media accounts, e.g., graph 212, can be built by building a profile for each internal customer at 213, crawling and building a profile for each external account at 214, and inferring a soft correspondence between two customer populations at 215.

To build a profile for each internal customer, the structural characteristics for each internal customer can be constructed, wherein the profile can be augmented with zero or more non-structural characteristics for each customer. The structural characteristics for each internal customer can include, for example, a degree of the customer from the internal social network, the community-membership of the customer inferred from the internal social network, the centrality of the customer implied from the internal social network, etc.

To infer the soft correspondence between two populations, the soft correspondence for an arbitrary participant can be inferred from a first population with any participant of a second population. Inferring the soft correspondence for an arbitrary participant from the first population with any participant of the second population can include initializing the correspondence between the participant with any participant of the second population, updating the correspondence strength according to the gradient information, and adjusting/projecting an updated soft correspondence to a feasible region/area. Here, the soft correspondence can include an n1×n2 non-negative table, with each entry being the likelihood of the two corresponding participants being the same.

The n1×n2 non-negative table 218 of the soft correspondence can be used as a random walk graph kernel for traversing the input graphs 211 and 212.

The methodologies of embodiments of the disclosure may be particularly well-suited for use in an electronic device or alternative system. Accordingly, embodiments of the present disclosure may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “processor”, “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, embodiments of the present disclosure may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code stored thereon.

Furthermore, it should be noted that any of the methods described herein can include an additional step of providing a system (see for example, FIG. 2C: 219) comprising distinct software modules embodied on one or more tangible computer readable storage media. All the modules (or any subset thereof) can be on the same medium, or each can be on a different medium, for example. The modules can include any or all of the components shown in the figures. In a non-limiting example, the modules include a first module that builds a feature representation for each of the first graph and the second graph (see for example, FIG. 2C: 220), a second module that infers the soft correspondence between the first node set and the second node set based on the feature representations (see for example, FIG. 2C: 221), wherein a soft correspondence matrix is indicative of the similarity between the first and second graphs. Further, a computer program product can include a tangible computer-readable recordable storage medium with code adapted to be executed to carry out one or more method steps described herein, including the provision of the system with the distinct software modules.

Any combination of one or more computer usable or computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. The computer-usable or computer-readable medium may be a computer readable storage medium. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer-readable storage medium would include the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus or device.

Computer program code for carrying out operations of embodiments of the present disclosure may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).

Embodiments of the present disclosure are described above with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions.

These computer program instructions may be stored in a computer-readable medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instruction means which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.

The computer program instructions may be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.

For example, FIG. 10 is a block diagram depicting an exemplary computer system for detecting top-K simple shortest paths in a graph according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The computer system shown in FIG. 10 includes a processor 1001, memory 1002, signal source 1003, system bus 1004, Hard Drive (HD) controller 1005, keyboard controller 1006, serial interface controller 1007, parallel interface controller 1008, display controller 1009, hard disk 1010, keyboard 1011, serial peripheral device 1012, parallel peripheral device 1013, and display 1014.

In these components, the processor 1001, memory 1002, signal source 1003, HD controller 1005, keyboard controller 1006, serial interface controller 1007, parallel interface controller 1008, display controller 1009 are connected to the system bus 1004. The hard disk 1010 is connected to the HD controller 1005. The keyboard 1011 is connected to the keyboard controller 1006. The serial peripheral device 1012 is connected to the serial interface controller 1007. The parallel peripheral device 1013 is connected to the parallel interface controller 1008. The display 1014 is connected to the display controller 1009.

In different applications, some of the components shown in FIG. 10 can be omitted. The whole system shown in FIG. 10 is controlled by computer readable instructions, which are generally stored in the hard disk 1010, EPROM or other non-volatile storage such as software. The software can be downloaded from a network (not shown in the figures), stored in the hard disk 1010. Alternatively, a software downloaded from a network can be loaded into the memory 1002 and executed by the processor 1001 so as to complete the function determined by the software.

The processor 1001 may be configured to perform one or more methodologies described in the present disclosure, illustrative embodiments of which are shown in the above figures and described herein. Embodiments of the present disclosure can be implemented as a routine that is stored in memory 1002 and executed by the processor 1001 to process the signal from the signal source 1003. As such, the computer system is a general-purpose computer system that becomes a specific purpose computer system when executing the routine of the present disclosure.

Although the computer system described in FIG. 10 can support methods according to the present disclosure, this system is only one example of a computer system. Those skilled of the art should understand that other computer system designs can be used to implement the present invention.

It is to be appreciated that the term “processor” as used herein is intended to include any processing device, such as, for example, one that includes a central processing unit (CPU) and/or other processing circuitry (e.g., digital signal processor (DSP), microprocessor, etc.). Additionally, it is to be understood that the term “processor” may refer to a multi-core processor that contains multiple processing cores in a processor or more than one processing device, and that various elements associated with a processing device may be shared by other processing devices.

The term “memory” as used herein is intended to include memory and other computer-readable media associated with a processor or CPU, such as, for example, random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), fixed storage media (e.g., a hard drive), removable storage media (e.g., a diskette), flash memory, etc. Furthermore, the term “I/O circuitry” as used herein is intended to include, for example, one or more input devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, etc.) for entering data to the processor, and/or one or more output devices (e.g., printer, monitor, etc.) for presenting the results associated with the processor.

The flowchart and block diagrams in the figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.

Although illustrative embodiments of the present disclosure have been described herein with reference to the accompanying drawings, it is to be understood that the disclosure is not limited to those precise embodiments, and that various other changes and modifications may be made therein by one skilled in the art without departing from the scope of the appended claims. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of determining a correspondence between a first node set of a first graph and a second node of a second graph, the method comprising: building a feature representation for each of said first graph and said second graph; and inferring said correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein building said feature representation for each of said first graph and said second graph further comprises: determining a degree for each node of each graph; inferring a community-membership for said each node of each graph; and determining a centrality for said each node of each graph.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein inferring said correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations further comprises inferring said correspondence for an arbitrary node of said first graph with any node of said second graph.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein inferring said correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations further comprises: initializing said correspondence; adjusting said correspondence according to gradient information; and projecting an updated correspondence to a feasible region.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein said correspondence comprises an n₁×n₂ non-negative table, wherein an entry of said n₁×n₂ non-negative table is a likelihood that said first node and said second node are the same.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein said correspondence is a soft correspondence wherein each a node from said first graph corresponds to each node from said second graph with a respective weight.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein said nodes of said first graph and said second graph correspond to data associated with a plurality of users and said correspondence reveals an identity of a user associated with a first node of said first node set based on a known identity of said user associated with a second node of said second node set.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein said nodes of said first graph and said second graph correspond to data associated with a plurality of diseases and said correspondence reveals a disease associated with a first node of said first node set based on a known disease associated with a second node of said second node set.
 9. A computer program product for determining a correspondence between a first node set of a first graph and a second node of a second graph, the computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code comprising: computer readable program code configured to build a feature representation for each of said first graph and said second graph; and computer readable program code configured to infer said correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations.
 10. The computer program product of claim 9, wherein said computer readable program code configured to build said feature representation for each of said first graph and said second graph further comprises: computer readable program code configured to determine a degree for each node of each graph; computer readable program code configured to infer a community-membership for said each node of each graph; and computer readable program code configured to determine a centrality for said each node of each graph.
 11. The computer program product of claim 9, wherein said computer readable program code configured to infer said correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations further comprises computer readable program code configured to infer said correspondence for an arbitrary node of said first graph with any node of said second graph.
 12. The computer program product of claim 9, wherein said computer readable program code configured to infer said correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations further comprises: computer readable program code configured to initialize said correspondence; computer readable program code configured to adjust said correspondence according to gradient information; and computer readable program code configured to project an updated correspondence to a feasible region.
 13. The computer program product of claim 9, wherein said correspondence comprises an n₁×n₂ non-negative table, wherein an entry of said n₁×n₂ non-negative table is a likelihood that said first node and said second node are the same.
 14. The computer program product of claim 9, wherein said correspondence is a soft correspondence wherein each a node from said first graph corresponds to each node from said second graph with a respective weight.
 15. A computer program product for finding a correspondence between a plurality of graphs, the computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code comprising: computer readable program code configured to convert said plurality of graphs into respective feature representations and decoupling a dependency between said plurality of graphs; and computer readable program code configured to determine said correspondence between a plurality of features of said feature representations.
 16. The computer program product of claim 15, wherein decoupling said dependency converts an n:n problem into a 1:n problem.
 17. The computer program product of claim 16, further comprising applying a gradient descent to solve said 1:n problem and determine said correspondence.
 18. The computer program product of claim 15, wherein said correspondence is a soft correspondence wherein each a node from said first graph corresponds to each node from said second graph with a respective weight.
 19. A computer program product, comprising a computer usable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code configured to be executed by a processor to implement a method for determining a correspondence between a first node set of a first graph and a second node of a second graph, said method comprising: providing a system, wherein said system comprises distinct software modules, and wherein said distinct software modules comprise a feature determination module and an inference module; building a feature representation for each of said first graph and said second graph, and wherein said building is performed by said feature determination module in response to being called by said processor; and inferring a correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations, wherein said inferring is performed by said inference module in response to being called by said processor.
 20. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein inferring a correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations module further comprises: determining a degree for each node of each graph; inferring a community-membership for said each node of each graph; and determining a centrality for said each node of each graph.
 21. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein inferring a correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations further comprises inferring said correspondence for an arbitrary node of said first graph with any node of said second graph.
 22. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein inferring a correspondence between said first node set and said second node set based on said feature representations further comprises: initializing said correspondence; adjusting said correspondence according to gradient information; and projecting an updated correspondence to a feasible region.
 23. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein said correspondence comprises an n₁×n₂ non-negative table, wherein an entry of said n₁×n₂ non-negative table is a likelihood that said first node and said second node are the same.
 24. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein said correspondence is a soft correspondence wherein each a node from said first graph corresponds to each node from said second graph with a respective weight. 